Celebrating the goals and ideals of "Black Music Month".

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

I plan to ask for unanimous consent to modify my amendment to reflect some of the amendments throughout this process that were not made in order by the Rules Committee. What I want to know is, is it in order, if the other side agrees with the unanimous consent request, and is it possible for them to do so and allow these other amendments to be offered?

The inquiry is, under unanimous consent, can the majority party agree to modify my amendment?

Yes, I do.

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified to the form I have at the desk.

I thank the Chair.

What I wanted to establish is that by unanimous consent the majority party could agree for me to modify my amendment. Now, I was allowed for 11 amendments under this rule to strike earmarks from the bill. Unfortunately, numerous Members, dozens of Members, were denied the ability to offer any amendments on this bill. It seems the majority party only wants to deal

with those amendments that they know they could win.

Now, under tradition, this House has brought appropriations bills of the House to the floor under an open rule. We've broken with tradition this year. There is a headline on AP wire right now that says, ``House Democrats muzzle GOP on sensitive issues.'' That's a pretty accurate headline. That's exactly what's happening here.

Now, we were told that it was a time constraint issue, that we simply couldn't finish all of the appropriations bills under a certain amount of time so we had to restrict the number of amendments. That's what the world was told here, the country was told. We find out that's not the case at all. We have a time limit under this bill. I have 11 amendments. I'm willing to modify my amendments to reflect some of those that were denied, amendments that were germane.

The first one that I have at the desk is one that would protect broadcaster freedom. This is an amendment that was offered last year in the appropriation bill. It was germane, and it received 309 votes from this Chamber, but the majority leadership doesn't want to vote on that, and so they've denied the authors of that amendment the ability to come to the floor and offer it. And so I'm willing to substitute that for one of mine under unanimous consent, but the gentleman objected twice, so we won't be able to do that.

So I just want to say it on the record--and I will say it again and again--this process is not right. We know this isn't the way it should be done. House Democrats are muzzling the GOP on sensitive issues, just like the headlines now read. It's not an issue of time. We're under time constraints already. We're willing to simply substitute time for time, but the majority party simply will not allow it.

Now to the merits of this amendment.

I'm seeking to strike funding, $100,000 for funding a small business incubator at the University of West Georgia. This would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. This is money that's going to a business incubator. You will see that theme throughout a lot of these amendments, whether they're at a university or under some other umbrella. We're taking money from the Treasury here, money that we have to borrow, and funding business incubators.

Now a business incubator, that's a bit of a nebulous term and I haven't quite figured out what it is. It means different things in different places. But apparently here it's simply to offer counseling, resource information exchange, and distance-learning opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business ventures. That kind of thing is done all the time in every State, everywhere. But not everybody gets a Federal earmark to do that and it's not fair to do it here. People that get this kind of money should have to compete for it if that money is available at all.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair and I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I think I'm the most commended Member in this body who never wins an amendment. Nevertheless, I think when you look at what's being funded here, these are activities that go on all over the country, whether they're sponsored by universities, whether they're sponsored by business groups, chambers of commerce, other associations. And to single one out and say that the University of West Georgia is deserving of a Federal earmark for their project, for their business incubator simply doesn't make sense.

We have a deficit this year that will approach $2 trillion by the time we finish the fiscal year. We are borrowing money from the taxpayers all over this country, or actually borrowing it from foreign countries, and we're asking the taxpayers and future generations of taxpayers to pay for it because we don't have the money to fund these programs.

This bill increases spending in the Financial Services appropriations bill, I think, $1.6 billion or so increase over last year. Yet we're funding projects as if we have no problem at all, as if money grows on trees here. And it doesn't. At some point I think we have to step back and say, We can't continue to do business this way. At some point we have to say, We're going to strike an earmark, or we're going to save some money somewhere. I would suggest that now is the time. If we're not going to do it now, I don't know when we're going to do it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified to the form I have at the desk.

That didn't sound like the Clerk, so I guess we've been objected to again.

Again what I am trying to do here is modify my amendment to reflect one of the amendments that was rejected by the Rules Committee. This particular amendment would keep in place the restrictions that have been in place for a long, long time against using taxpayer money to fund abortion services.

The sponsors of this amendment, on both sides of the aisle, felt so strongly about it that many of them on the other side of the aisle voted against the rule. So when time expired just about an hour or so ago to vote on the rule for this bill, it was about 10 votes short of passing because more than 30 Democrats voted against the rule. Now the vote was held open for an inordinate amount of time so that leadership could twist some arms and change some votes to get this rule to pass. You had Members on both sides of the aisle feel that strongly about bringing an amendment to the floor, but the majority party leadership decided, no, that we should be muzzled, not just on this side but Members on that side of the aisle as well.

Mr. Chairman, that's just not right, but that's what happens when you declare martial law on appropriations bills and say to the world, We can't do it because time does not allow. And then when somebody here asks for unanimous consent to simply substitute time for time, one amendment that wasn't allowed in order for one amendment that was, the majority stands up and says, I object.

So let's get rid of the fiction once and for all that this is an issue of time. What it's an issue of, the majority leadership does not want Members to have the ability to offer the amendments they would like to. We had the gentleman stand up in the last hour who presided a couple of years ago over the Interior appropriation bill. He noted that he sat in the Chair for over 3 days to listen to amendments come up on the Interior appropriation bill. I remember that time. I offered many of those amendments. There were many amendments that people on both sides of the aisle offered that the leadership on both sides of the aisle was uncomfortable with. But they allowed it to occur, because that's the way it should work here.

Under this martial law rule, we have a structured rule and the majority leadership picks which amendments can be offered and which ones cannot. That is simply not right, Mr. Chairman.

Now in terms of this amendment, this amendment would prohibit $200,000 from funding the Arkansas Commercial Driving Training Institute, and it would lower the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. The recipient of this earmark is Arkansas State University. It's had a truck driving institute for more than 20 years. I am all for driver safety, particularly big 18-wheelers that are on the road, but I'm not sure why the Federal Government is funding this particular driving program. Nor do I understand why this institute is receiving another earmark, having received nearly a quarter of a million dollars in earmark funds in the omnibus bill that we passed just a few short months ago.

In fact, it appears that this institute was established and built in part with taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, thanks to a nearly $350,000 earmark it received in the fiscal 2008 transportation spending bill.

A quick search on the Internet shows there are dozens and dozens and dozens of commercial driving training schools all over the country. None of them have received this kind of Federal largesse. Why do we continue to fund institutes like this? Aren't some of the others just as deserving? Or is it just because we have Members in a position to do it?

If you look at this chart, you'll get the answer there. This is the Financial Services bill that we're dealing with now. Sixty percent of the earmarks in this bill are going to just 24 percent of the body. That represents appropriators, chairmen, ranking minority members, so- called powerful Members. Sixty percent. If you look at the dollar value of the earmark, that goes up to 70 percent. Seventy percent of the earmark dollars in this bill are going to less than 24 percent of the body.

Now you'll hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric about we can't let those faceless bureaucrats in the bureaucracy decide where the money goes. Well, most of the Members in this body would do better with faceless bureaucrats than with the Appropriations Committee, because time and time again, and this is a trend that we've seen throughout the appropriation bills this year, a small number of Members get a big chunk of the cash. And this is going to some organizations that have gotten earmarks year after year after year after year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge support of the amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 9.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form I have at the desk.

I'd like to engage on my time a colloquy with the gentleman, the chair of the relevant subcommittee, if I could.

I'm just wondering why the majority doesn't want to consider these amendments that weren't made in order.

I thank the gentleman. He makes an important point. We have traditions in this House that we ought to uphold--and one tradition is appropriation bills being brought to the floor under an open rule. And we shouldn't be able to change that just because we feel like.

What I'm trying to do is return to the traditions of the House and allow Members to bring the amendments that they would like to offer; that their constituents, with their voice in Washington, would like them to be able to offer. But we're not allowed to. As the headline out there right now reads, ``House Democrats muzzle GOP on sensitive issues.''

Now this amendment that I would like to have offered instead of mine would allow the School Choice Initiative in Washington, D.C., to continue. Funding will go away for everyone except those who are currently in the program.

Over the past several years, thousands of residents of D.C. schools have been able to go to the schools of their choice. Now, because of this bill being passed today, unless an amendment is accepted otherwise, those children will be denied that choice.

Now that is an amendment that has support on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle. It was an amendment that was offered at the Rules Committee that was fully germane. It was in order to be considered. It was simply rejected because the majority leadership did not want this body to vote on it. I don't know why. We will have to all speculate.

But the fact is that we're taking the time that could have been offered for this amendment and allowing that one to be offered instead. So we're not increasing the time for these appropriation bills. The majority party is still objecting to that unanimous consent request.

Now, with regard to this amendment, this amendment would prohibit $285,000 from going to Idaho TechConnect, Inc., for the Proof of Concept Center, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. This Idaho TechConnect accelerates Idaho's innovation-based economy by connecting people, resources, and ideas.

Here's another one that's pretty much indistinguishable, I think, from the last one. It's a business incubator of some type that a group here, Idaho TechConnect, seems to think is worthy of Federal largess or an earmark. It doesn't want to compete for dollars that might be in an account that Congress, through its role under article I, has instructed the agency to set up. No. It attempts to earmark dollars beyond that.

The last gentleman mentioned that Congress has the power to appropriate. It certainly does. That's what we do here. That's the most important part of what we do here. And we tell the agencies what they can fund and what they can't, and we provide the money for them to do so.

We will often tell them to set up a program by which individuals and organizations around the country can compete for Federal dollars. But instead, here what Congress is doing is saying, We don't like what you've set up so we're going to run a parallel program, we're going to earmark dollars for these programs, because if the organization in my district had to compete for those dollars, they may not get them. There's only a 98 percent chance that they would get them. I want to make sure they do. Or, there's a 5 percent chance they would get it. I want

to make sure that they get those monies. And so we run a parallel track here.

I would say that I can't find the word bureaucrat in the Constitution, nor can I find the word earmark. Congress has the power to appropriate. But we authorize, we appropriate, and we have oversight functions. And we're circumventing that process when we earmark in this fashion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman and the gentleman's comments, the minority leader. We ought to allow substitution of this amendment. There's no reason, other than the majority party simply doesn't want to have the debate or have the vote.

With that, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

This amendment that I had hoped to substitute was an amendment offered by the gentleman, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, which would simply have prohibited union activity on government time. Apparently, it's an amendment that the majority leadership did not want--it's a debate that they didn't want this body to have. It's an amendment they didn't want this body to vote on.

Now, it's a shame because it would be a 5-minute time limit, or 5 minutes per side, just the same as this amendment. This isn't an issue of time. There were a lot of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Far fewer were made in order, but now we have the time established and we're simply wanting to substitute one germane amendment for another germane amendment, but the majority party is objecting once again. So I think that the headline that was just out-- House Democrats muzzle GOP on sensitive issues--is completely correct, and it is a shame, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would prohibit $200,000 in funding for the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund, and it would reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.

According to the sponsor's Web site, the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund has helped start, stabilize or expand more than 1,100 local businesses and helped train or retain more than 3,000 jobs.

The certification letter indicated the funding for the Greenstone Group would strengthen 500 entrepreneurs in the region through group- based learning, peer support and access to various business services.

Again, here we have another business incubator. This is something that private-sector organizations, chambers of commerce, trade associations, and other businesses offer and do all over this country-- hundreds in every State. Yet here we are singling one out and are saying this one is worthy of a Federal earmark, and we're going to give $200,000 to it. That's not right, Mr. Chairman. We can't continue to spend money this way.

Every dime that we are spending over and above what we spent last year, and a lot of what we spent last year is borrowed. When will we decide enough is enough and that we can't continue to do business as usual and fund earmarks in this fashion?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair.

I would yield to the gentleman just 30 seconds for him to explain whether there is any time in the foreseeable future that he believes the entity will not be reliant, or dependent, on Federal funds.

I thank the gentleman. I thank him for that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress will ever say that, in his district, there is full employment and that there is no need for outside assistance. This particular entity isn't just receiving this earmark. It received an earmark for nearly $250,000 in the FY09 omnibus bill that we passed just a few months ago. So we have last year's bill, this year's bill and likely next year's bill.

There are organizations all over the country that would like, one, to compete for SBA funds on merit rather than on earmark, and there are private-sector organizations that would like to provide this assistance, but they're competing with government entities that are providing some of the same services, a lot of these services that are indicated here--strengthening entrepreneurs, group-based learning, peer support, access to various business services. These are services provided by the private sector all over the place as well, but these private-sector organizations now have to compete with government organizations to survive. In some cases, it is no wonder there aren't private-sector organizations. They're crowded out by their government counterparts.

So, rather than continuing to fund entities that have received earmarks year after year and that have no real prospect of not being reliant on Federal Government funding in the future, we've got to say enough is enough. We can't continue to spend money this way when we're running a deficit that might approach $2 trillion this year.

With that, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 11.

I'm just proud of myself for getting those words out before the objection came.

Again, I would have substituted, this time, the Broadcaster Freedom Act amendment, which would have been the same amendment we passed last year, which needs to be passed every year to prohibit the FCC from bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would muzzle or gag, much like we're being muzzled or gagged on this side during this debate. It would muzzle or gag, particularly, conservative talk radio. That is the purpose that has been raised in the past, and there are fears and, certainly, some support among certain powerful Members of this body to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

This would prohibit the FCC from spending any money to implement that Fairness Doctrine. Again, first we're being told that we don't have time to consider this amendment. We know that's not the case. So the real reason is the majority leadership does not want this amendment to be considered. They don't want the debate to happen. They don't want a vote to happen. They don't want to put their Members on record. They simply don't want to prohibit funding for that purpose. It is too bad, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that we could return to the traditions of this House, have open appropriations bills and have an open debate.

This amendment would remove $150,000 in funding for the Montgomery County Green Business Incubator, and it would reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. The recipient of this earmark is the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development. Now, I should say I don't know how many counties there are around this country. States like Arizona have large counties. A few States in the Midwest and in the South have literally hundreds of counties. In just about every county in the country there is a Department of Economic Development. Cities have them. States have them. There are literally thousands across this country, but we're singling out one here, the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development.

We're saying, You don't have to compete with everybody else for any dollars that the SBA has to send out, because we're going to earmark those dollars, and you're going to get them regardless of the merit of your program. It may be good; it may not be, but it doesn't matter because a powerful Member of Congress can simply say you're going to get that money, and that's what's happening here.

Again, these are business incubators, which is a pretty broad topic, providing services that a lot of private-sector organizations across this country already provide.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

And I have the right to close?

I will reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman who spoke earlier mentioned that this was in the top 10 of something. I know that Montgomery County beat out eight competing counties to house the Maryland Clean Energy Center, which is the State's first clearinghouse to drive clean energy and technologies. So we have an organization here, a county that is beating out competition. That's a good thing. But we're telling them, because you're beating out that competition, we're going to give you an earmark so you won't have to compete anymore. I mentioned that there are literally thousands of county Departments of Economic Development around the country who would like a shot at these funds, I'm quite sure. But when they apply for these funds at the SBA, they're probably being told, Sorry. That account is oversubscribed. There are too many earmarks in it so you won't be able to compete because a particular powerful Member of Congress simply siphoned off the funding so that an organization or institution in his or her district could receive those funds without competing for them. Just remember, what earmarks really are are no-bid contracts. It's basically an acknowledgement that you don't want the organization or institution in your district or elsewhere to compete for the funding, so you are going to ensure that they get it. And when you look at a chart like this, it's particularly pernicious when 60 percent of the share of earmarks are associated with appropriators, leadership, committee Chairs or ranking minority members, who comprise just 24 percent of this body, and 70 percent of the dollar value is associated with that group. And so you have a spoils system that decides where this money goes. Remember, Congress has the power to appropriate; and what we should do is first authorize, then appropriate and then conduct proper oversight but not circumvent that process by saying, We're just going to run a parallel program over here in Congress and earmark the dollars.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair.

The argument we're hearing is akin to saying--you know this whole college bowl system that we have, the BCS? That's good. But we think the University of Maryland or Arizona State University or BYU or another organization, we think they're better. So we're just going to award them the national championship. They shouldn't even have to compete in the BCS or anywhere else because we think they're better. And because we can, we're going to do that. That's one of the problems with the contemporary practice of earmarking. And for that, I hope that we will object this amendment and at some point say that we can't continue to spend money in this way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman.

It's unfortunate that it's been objected to again. Again, this amendment that I would have substituted is one that had bipartisan support, many Democrats, many Republicans, that would simply keep in place the restrictions that have been in place for years with regard to taxpayer-funded abortion. This is one that the rule for this bill just narrowly passed after the vote was held open for longer than it was supposed to so that a few arms could be twisted to make the rule pass because so many Members wanted this amendment to be considered. But yet the leadership on the majority side has said, We don't want to have a debate on this. We don't want to have a vote on this.

Now it doesn't matter which side you're on on this issue. I think everyone should agree that we should have a vote on it. This is the people's House. People should have the opportunity to vote on issues like this. It is not increasing the time for debate. It's simply substituting one amendment for another. It is unfortunate we won't be able to do that.

This amendment would remove $100,000 in funding for the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida, to be used for, quote, activity-based total accountability. According to the earmark sponsor's Web site, he requested just short of $1 million to ``create a national government services standards program to provide guidelines for which the efficiency of government services can be compared.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments. I think if we could bottle up all the shared zeal to cut spending, then maybe we could pass one of these amendments to cut spending.

The gentleman points out that we are not cutting it, and that year after year, when those of us who want to come down here and strike funding for earmarks want to do it, we receive objection from those on the Appropriations Committee to say, well, you're not really saving anything because it will go right back into there.

But you can go and lower the 301(b)s and (a)s, and you can do it the way you want to, but maybe, just maybe the reason the Appropriations Committee, on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately, and it pains me to say this as a Republican, but part of the reason you don't see the Appropriations Committee very anxious to cut spending is because of this. When you look at 70 percent of the dollar value of the earmarks being associated with Members who make up less than 24 percent of the body, if you take the Appropriations Committee, it is less than 14 percent of the body, and more than half of the dollar value of earmarks goes to just 14 percent of the body.

So I have to take with a rather large grain of salt the lamenting year after year after year by appropriators on both sides of the aisle that we can't cut this earmark spending because that darn money will just go right back into the system. So we can change any time we want.

I should say, also, this amendment made in order here will cut the funding and reduce it in the bill by the same amount. And to hear the excuse that we simply can't do that--and also this is something called activity-based total accountability, and the sponsor says that the purpose of the earmark is so that we can have more transparency in our funding structures at the State and local level. I find it ironic that we are using the least accountable system for distributing funds in order to increase transparency somewhere else.

At some point, we are all going to scratch our heads and say, wouldn't it be better when we are running at what could be a $2 trillion deficit this year to actually save the money and not spend it and concede to the taxpayers we can't continue to go on this way? But simply to say we can't cut these earmarks because, oh, that money will just go somewhere else, really, is a bit, it is just----

For 15 seconds. I think I have heard this before.

Reclaiming my time, we were in control for 6 years while I have been in this Congress, and we didn't make any effort to do that. That is the unfortunate thing. And we haven't done any better under the current leadership. But, unfortunately, we didn't send a very good example when we were in charge because we could have, at any time, ensured that the money went back to the taxpayer. But we didn't.

With that, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Is the gentleman sure he doesn't want to just reserve the right to object until he hears which amendment I have?

All right. This amendment, I would submit, the modification would be to allow the school choice initiative to continue in D.C., again, a bipartisan amendment offered to the Rules Committee, rejected by the Rules Committee, because the Democratic leadership decided that this House should not debate the topic nor vote on it.

We have the time. It is not an issue of time. I'm willing to forgo one of my amendments to allow this one to be offered. But, again, the House leadership has decided they don't want to debate nor vote on this amendment, and so we are not allowed to.

We are breaking tradition that has held for decades and decades and decades in this House in order to simply shield Members or shield parties or whatever from votes that might be taken in the body. And that is unfortunate.

This amendment would prohibit $90,000 in funding for the Commercial Kitchen Business Incubator in Watsonville, California, and would lower the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. According to the sponsor, the funding would be used for a small business incubator for food service microenterprise. Specifically it would be used to purchase industrial kitchen equipment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I respect the gentleman from California. He and I have worked together on a lot of legislation.

But in this case, I would simply say there are a lot of areas in the country that are hurting. In California, El Centro has an unemployment rate of 27 percent. Just across the California border in Arizona, Yuma has an unemployment rate of 20 percent. There are a lot of people hurting in a lot of places. But when I hear the gentleman say this is going to be a one-time expenditure, we have heard that before. We have heard that many, many times before. I'm sure some of the earmarks that we talked about earlier, the first year the Member got the earmark, he would have said, this is going to be a one-time expenditure. And yet year after year after year, we are funding the same earmark.

These business incubators are particularly prone to repetitive earmarks over the years. We seem to keep funding them again and again.

Again, let me say that there are a lot of business incubator services provided by chambers of commerce, trade associations and private sector organizations just wishing to supply services and to make a dollar. And yet now they are going to be asked to compete with a government entity that is receiving Federal largesse. And it simply doesn't work very well. We know we don't have sufficient money to spread around to everybody who wants it. We are running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion. So we have to prioritize here. I would suggest it is time to say that we can no longer fund these business incubators that have kind of a nebulous mission that is provided by a lot of private sector organizations around there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I hope I have the opportunity, because I will offer an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill to stop funding the F-22. The gentleman has a good point. But we should also make the point that we cannot continue to pick and choose winners and losers here. What we are doing is borrowing money from our kids and our grandkids all around the country. We are borrowing money from small businesses and others because we simply don't have the money here. We are running a deficit.

So what we are doing is selling bonds to finance the deficit that is going to have to be paid back at some time. We are saying, Mr. Small Businessman or Mrs. Small Businesswoman, we are going to take money from you now because we think we know how to spend it better on that business over there or on that incubator over there.

I would submit that that simply is not the most efficient use of resources. The market would tell us that is the most inefficient way to allocate money. Government doesn't do a particularly good job of allocating money, allocating money to startup businesses or anything else. So we have got to say ``stop'' somewhere.

I will be glad to support some of the programs that the gentleman has, some of the amendments to cut big items of spending from our entitlement programs and elsewhere. But we have got to do that, and we have got to do this. We can't let any program go and simply say that we are not going to cut spending when we have a deficit of nearly $2 trillion.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form that I have at the desk.

I thought the seventh time might be the charm, but apparently not. Apparently, the majority party is insistent that it only hear the amendments that it wants to have debated and that it wants to vote on, rather than the amendments that the Members here decide what they want to debate and vote on.

It is unfortunate. I would have substituted the amendment that would prohibit union activity on government time. It seems to be a simple concept, not controversial. But it is apparently one that the leadership did not want to debate nor to vote on. It is not an issue of time. Time constraints are already here.

The only issue is the majority leadership decided they don't want to debate or have a vote on this issue.

This amendment would prohibit $125,000 from going to the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. This funding would go toward the EGC's defense procurement and assistance program to, according to the sponsor, provide small and medium-sized business with additional support for all phases of the government contracting and acquisition process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I'm not sure how much more help southwestern Pennsylvania needs in the way of defense procurement assistance. And I'm not sure how much more the taxpayers in this body can actually afford.

According to usaspending.gov, the district in which the Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland appears to reside has benefited from nearly $1.4 billion in Federal contracts from 2004 to 2009, hardly the poorest of the poor. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency make up four of the top 10 contracting agencies, and more than 60 percent of these funds were not subject to full and open competition.

Similarly, usaspending.gov indicates that the district of the sponsor of this earmark has benefited from more than a billion dollars in Federal contracts from 2004 to 2009, with less than half available for everyone to compete for.

Among the list of contractors receiving these funds, according to usaspending.gov, are many that we've come to know very well, all too well: Kuchera Defense Systems, Argon ST, KDH Defense, and Concurrent Technologies. Kuchera Defense Systems. That is a defense contractor for whom the sponsor of this earmark requested funding over the past 2 years, was raided by the FBI in January, suspended by the Navy, reported for ``alleged fraud,'' including multiple instances of incorrect charges, along with allegations of defective pricing and ethical violations.

Argon ST has been in the news lately because it purchased Coherent Systems International in 2007. It has been reported that the former head of Coherent Systems pled guilty in Federal Court Tuesday, just this last Tuesday, to a kickback scheme and defrauding the U.S. Air Force.

KDH Defense also made headlines when Roll Call reported that the bulletproof vest company received millions of taxpayer dollars to build a sonar system that it had no experience to design.

Concurrent Technologies has long been the focus of defense earmark critics. For example, at the end of 2007 the Washington Post highlighted that the National Defense Center For Environmental Excellence that was managed by Concurrent had received more than $600 million in funding, and that little of the center's work had been useful to the Department of Defense.

How long can we continue to provide defense-related procurement dollars for an area with so many organizations that have been associated with conduct that I think people in this body would say are certainly not deserving of more earmarks? Yet we're doing it here again.

How much longer are we going to do this, Mr. Chairman?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that several of these companies in this area were clients of the PMA Group, a now defunct lobbying firm that specialized in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients. Since PMA was raided by the FBI and closed its doors, multiple press reports have noted questions related to campaign contributions made on or behalf of the firm, including questions related to straw man contributions, reimbursement of employees for political giving, pressure on clients to give, suspicious pattern of giving, and the timing of donations related to legislative activity. So here we are, yet again, with another defense-related earmark for an area that has received billions in defense spending that has previously been associated with contractors that have run into trouble, and a lobbying group that has cast a long shadow over this House.

I urge my colleagues, if we're going to step up at any time, and say, enough is enough, let's step up here. For an earmark for $125,000 to going to help in defense procurement for an area that receives billions and billions of dollars in defense procurement.

When is enough enough, Mr. Chairman?

I ask for support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 15.

This is, I believe, number 8 times the majority has objected to simply substituting an amendment that was not ruled in order by the Rules Committee, an amendment that was germane. This particular amendment was one that would have protected broadcaster freedom to make sure that talk radio stations around the country and other media organizations would not be subjected to new regulations which would try to control their content. This amendment passed last year by a margin, I think, 309 votes in favor. Yet, it's one that the majority party did not want to hear debated, or did not want to see a vote on, and despite the fact that it has bipartisan support.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we can't continue to go down this road, having martial law on appropriation bills and simply saying that we're going to decide, as a majority party, the majority leadership, which amendments can be offered, which ones can be debated.

This particular amendment would prohibit $100,000 from being used to expand the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.

According to the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, the Myrtle Beach Convention Center hosted over 500 groups in 2008, has an economic impact of more than $55 million per year. It was the host site of the 2008 South Carolina GOP Presidential candidates debate. It draws a large number of civic and public events.

Why in the world are we spending another $100,000, when we have nearly a $2 trillion deficit, for a convention center, convention and conference center? There are convention and conference centers all over the country. There are many in my home State of Arizona. Why we should choose one and say they're worthy of an earmark and the other one isn't, and saying that they shouldn't compete for dollars, we're just going to hand them out.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would continue in that vein, I would give him more time. I even got a bit of whiplash here. I thought the gentleman was arguing to not spend another $100,000 on Myrtle Beach, the convention center attached to the Myrtle Beach hotel, the Sheraton.

If the gentleman is in support of the amendment, I would yield. If not, please don't say any more.

My frustration was we were in the majority for the first 6 years I was here. There were a lot of the same Members of the same appropriations committee. We could have cut the 302(a)s, but we didn't. And now we have appropriators now in the minority party blaming the appropriators in the majority party for doing what we should have done a few years ago.

So it all seems to me to make sense when you see a chart like this, that explains the spoils system that earmarks really are, when 70 percent of the dollar value of earmarks go to just 24 percent of the House, and when less than 14 percent of the House gets well over 50 percent of the dollar value overall of earmarks.

So I have to say we have to start somewhere, and if we can't start by saving $100,000 for the Myrtle Beach conference center, I don't know where we can start. I really, really don't.

So I would just urge my colleagues, if we say that we're fiscally responsible, then show it instead of standing up and saying, Hey, we need to cut spending, but first before we cut spending we've got to spend another $100,000 on the Myrtle Beach Convention Center. I think the taxpayers have heard that for far too long, when we were in the majority and now with the new majority. At some point, we're going to have to say we're not going to do this anymore. That's what we're attempting to do with this amendment. I would urge support of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk designated No. 16.

For the purpose--the gentleman has time, I believe.

I will yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I have said from the beginning I'm grateful for the amendments I get. But the vote on my amendments typically has all of the excitement and drama of a Cuban election where we know the outcome, unfortunately, and it serves as a useful purpose for the majority party.

I'm grateful for the amendments I get. I guess you have to be grateful and express gratitude for the benevolence of the majority party for granting me a few amendments on a bill that has traditionally come to the Congress under an open rule.

If that's what we've come to in this House, to just express gratitude for the crumbs that fall from the table in terms of being allowed to offer amendments on appropriation bills, I hope we haven't come to that but, Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to wonder.

I would like to have offered an amendment in substitute for one of mine that would--again, this would be for the D.C. School Choice Initiative, to allow it to continue, to allow students to have the choice of where they go to school, but we're denied once again.

This amendment would remove $100,000 in funding for the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse, Tech Belt Biosciences Initiative and reduce the cost of the bill by the commensurate amount.

This earmark states that the funding will be used for the creation of a Biosciences Tech Belt, and I am anxious to learn what that is.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Well, that was an interesting recitation of western history, I will tell you that, but this tech belt was created 2 years ago. The CEO of Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse and the CEO of BioEnterprise, Cleveland, decided to collaborate and leverage the existing resources in Pittsburgh and Cleveland, and this tech belt initiative was born.

But this is an interesting quote. I want everyone to hear this. John Manzetti, the CEO of Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse said the objective of the tech belt was to ``create some excitement and get funding from the Federal Government'' to build up their regions. It's been successful at that. Believe me. There's a lot of money that has gone in Federal earmark money, that's for sure.

According to the press release of the sponsor of this earmark, in this year's omnibus appropriation act alone, his district received $55 million in Federal funding from earmarks. That's just in the omnibus bill itself.

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania wanted to speak on a previous earmark, and I will yield him the last minute I have here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 1 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does several things. First, it increases FY 2010 funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission by $4.9 million to its authorized level of $118,200,000. I thank my colleagues Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Rosa DeLauro for cosponsoring my amendment to increase funding for the CPSC. Recently enacted consumer protection legislation has increased the workload of the CPSC considerably. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was signed into law last August. This law sets strict limits on the amount of lead and chemicals that can be used in making children's products. The CPSC has faced many challenges in implementing the new law, and this additional funding will enable them to fully address workload needs.

This amendment incorporates an amendment first offered by my colleague Mr. Hastings to provide an additional $250,000 for the National Credit Union Administration's Community Development Revolving Loan Fund. This is a worthy program that provides loans and grants to credit unions that serve low-income communities with the goal of improving the quality of financial services provided to those communities.

This amendment also incorporates an amendment first offered by my colleague Mr. Cuellar to prohibit the use of funds for first-class travel for employees of agencies funded by the bill. I think it makes sense to prohibit first-class travel for Federal employees.

I will close by saying that this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. I would like to point out that the Appropriations Committee has been very supportive of FinCEN. The reported bill provides the administration's requested funding increase of $11.3 million, or 12.3 percent, including $10 million to begin upgrades of the Bank Secrecy Act database used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. We recognize the intent of the gentleman. We think it's a good amendment, and we accept it.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

First of all, I think it is important to realize that a lot of Members, especially--well, all Members from the other side will get up and make it sound as if the last few months have been the months that caused the economic crisis that we are in. The fact of life is that this President is trying to clean up the mess that was created during the last 8 years, because the prior President left this economy in pretty much good shape. It fell apart during these last 8 years. And we are trying to recover.

On this particular matter, the Council of Economic Advisers, or the CEA, was created in 1946 when the country faced a major economic crisis, just as we are doing today. At the end of the Second World War, many feared that the economy would sink back into depression with the phase-out of war spending. The Congress wanted to ensure that sound economic advice would be provided at the highest levels of the administration.

In the wake of a stock market bubble followed by a housing bubble that we have recently had, people have reason to worry about where the growth and jobs of the future will come from. We need the CEA to help the administration make better policy for the future.

Today, CEA has been involved in developing and evaluating the Recovery Act, health care options, energy and greenhouse gas policies, tax changes, job and training programs and other major economic challenges of our time.

As the administration develops policies in all these critical areas, the CEA brings solid, scientific evidence on the economic effects of alternative policies into the discussion. This is probably one of those times where we really need this kind of a Federal agency. And this is not the time to do away with it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is very easy for folks on the other side to say, let's not talk about the past administration. I agree. That is not my intention. In fact, our President has said on many occasions the past is the past. But if we keep coming up and making it sound like something happened January 20 until today that brought us to our knees economically, then it is my role, and everybody else's role on this side, just to clarify and to discuss a little history. And the history is the fact that this economy is in bad shape not for anything that has happened this year, but what happened in the past.

On this amendment, this is the wrong time to get rid of this. This is the wrong time to move against it. We need it more than ever. I hope that people will defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

How much time do we have on this side?

I would like to yield myself whatever time I may consume.

You know, when we buy a car, the first thing they tell us is to make sure we service that car regularly, change the parts that are necessary, oil it and keep it in good shape.

We have a democracy, and as the gentleman from New Jersey says, and as everyone knows, at the core of that democracy is the ability to vote and to have our votes counted properly. Yet what we are trying to do here today is to cut away, if you will, from that maintenance program, which is more than a maintenance program. What happened here in 2000 and in other places after 2000 was that the American people, regardless of the outcome of the election, were left with the understanding that something was wrong and that the greatest democracy on Earth was having a difficult time counting people's votes properly. And so HAVA was created.

HAVA is still in operation. HAVA is having moneys go out to communities. This is not the time to cut HAVA funds. On the contrary, this is the time to reinforce the core of our democracy by allocating the necessary funds. Give the States the opportunity to deal with the issue. Let the States deal with the issues back home that they have to as they meet the Federal requirements.

So I would oppose this amendment, and I would remind us that we don't pay that much attention to elections and how we run them because we have had this for so long in this society and this country that we take it for granted. But 2000 should tell us that we should never take it for granted again and that we should pay strict attention to it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

It's interesting that when we speak about debt we never bring up the debt that the last administration rang up through the Iraq war. That's got to be at least half a trillion dollars, if not more. And I'm still waiting to find the weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, if I may brag for a second, I've got the gentlewoman beat. I have four grandchildren. And I don't want to saddle them with any debt in the future. But I think that this bill speaks to another issue that deals with them, and that is their present, so that they don't continue to be ripped off by crooks on Wall Street.

And yet the gentlewoman's cut, for instance, would cut $51 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would slash 120 staff members who have been placed here now to go after the crooks on Wall Street and all the other folks that created a problem for my four grandchildren now.

And so, yes, it is important to talk about the future. But it's also important to talk about the present. And what I keep hearing from folks is that, in a desire to save money now, we should do nothing to go after those people who created, who created much of the problems that we are facing now.

Let me give you another example. The IRS--new enforcement initiatives would go unfunded, resulting in over $600 million in lost tax revenues.

In other words, your 5 percent cut, the gentlewoman's 5 percent cut, would take away funding that goes after my grandchildren? No. After their parents? No. They would go after the millionaires and the zillionaires who are parking money overseas and who are not paying their fair share of taxes. So you would cut, she would cut, the gentlewoman would cut people to go after this.

If this amendment passes, the Small Business Administration would not be able to meet the borrowing needs of small businesses. SBA lending, in its popular 7(a) loan program, which both sides support, would be reduced by $875 million. Many small businesses, and we hear so often on that side about how much they love small business people, many small businesses have turned to the SBA or loans as the credit markets have tightened up, making less credit available to small businesses in this economic downturn. What this amendment proposes, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The Federal courts would be impacted with a 5 percent reduction

across the board. One thousand full-time employees would be reduced from the Federal courts. On and on, absolutely, you were right. I have a list, but the list is not a list made up by staff or myself just for me to have something to say; it is the result of the impact of a 5 percent reduction. And so, it makes a lot of sense to say, in some cases, it scores a lot of points to say I want to cut the budget by 5 percent. But I think when you look at what we're talking about, you're hurting the very people we should protect.

So let me once again say, I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman has two grandchildren that she wants to protect in the future. I have four that I want to protect in the future, but I want to make sure that we protect them now by making sure they don't get ripped off again, or their parents, as we did the last couple of years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We always talk about the debt. The debt was as a result of the last administration. In fact, all of these bailout programs started while we had another President in office.

The fact of life is that we have to protect the present. We have to make sure the past doesn't come back. And this 5 percent cut would hurt the very agencies in this bill that are supposed to assure us of a better present and a better future.

I oppose the amendment and urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our colleagues and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield myself 1 minute.

It's amazing that we hear about oversight now. Yes, we do have oversight. It's funny how the other side never claimed oversight when the White House was having meetings determining what our energy policy should be between the White House and lobbyists and no Members of Congress were present, or when the White House and the administration knew that there was torture and other actions going on and nothing was being said.

The problem here is this may rise to a new legislative low because on these committees we respect the White House. When President Bush was in and this committee was in function, we let basically the White House have the staff members it said it needed, and now what we're trying to do here legislatively is to fire people at the White House. That's the wrong thing to do, and we should oppose it.

I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Rahall. He takes care of all Puerto Rico issues, so I'm very nice to him.

I object, Mr. Chairman.

I object.

The Rules Committee made in order a certain amount of amendments. The Rules Committee is a body composed of Members from both sides. That's the rule that we're working under. And I think that out of respect for the House and the rules that we work under, we should accept that as the format for this debate today, and not to change it in any way just when we feel like it.

The Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland operates a Defense Procurement Assistance Center to serve two counties in southwestern Pennsylvania having a combined population base of 500,000 and combined workforce of over 257,000. The Economic Growth Connection is dedicated to growing small business and making local firms more competitive. This particular project, the Defense Procurement Assistance Program, advances these goals by: Offering assistance to small businesses on how to work with the DOD, including assistance with Federal Acquisition Regulations and workforce training; acting as a liaison between prime contractors and local suppliers to identify opportunities for subcontracting; conducting seminars to enhance the skill sets of the local workforce in this supply chain, including workshops on military certifications, process improvements, and quality assurance; and developing a manufacturing database to identify local companies and their capabilities. This database lists over 800 companies employing an estimated 48,000 people. And over the last 3 years, clients have been awarded on average $40 million each year in procurement contracts.

This is a worthy project. And I think it should be retained.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to know if there was a time during this debate where you were going to show any gratitude to the Rules Committee for the fact that of the 17 amendments you got 11?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished Representative from California (Ms. Watson) for the time.

H. Res. 476 celebrates the 30th anniversary of Black Music Month. It was first introduced by President Jimmy Carter, and President Carter recognized the influence--I guess, the Waldons kind of helped President Carter get going in Georgia, in Macon, Georgia, and of course that was James Brown, and there were a whole lot of folks there that Jimmy Carter was impressed with and the Allman Brothers, too, but he certainly was a James Brown guy in Georgia.

I was at an event this weekend, Mr. Speaker, in Memphis at Anthony F. Elmore's home honoring African culture, and there was a gentleman who played the drums at the beginning of the presentation. And after he finished he made a comment. He said, Without Africa, there would not be a beat. There wouldn't be a beat.

And I thought about that and I thought about this resolution and realized that he was correct. The beat's what it's about, a lot of folks believe. It's what makes music what it is or rock and roll or blues or jazz. A lot of times, I mean it's lyrics and so many things, but the beat's what it is, and that's what's unique about this contribution to music is the beat.

It came from the Mississippi River. It came from the Delta. Memphis is the home of the blues and the birthplace of rock and roll. It's my hometown, and St. Louis had the blues, too. W.C. Handy was from Memphis and a great innovator, and he spent time in both Memphis and in St. Louis. And then if you spin off a little bit to Kansas City, Charlie Parker, who was really the father of bebop and jazz, and Kansas City, where they've got a jazz museum, and he got a special kind of music going and went to New York with Dizzy Gillespie and Max Roach and some other jazz greats and brought a jazz form that I guess had its roots not only in Kansas City, but also in New Orleans with Louis Armstrong and James Booker, who was such a great keyboard performer and gave birth to folks like Professor Longhair that tickled the

ivories in a special manner that's the New Orleans style. It's really a gumbo of music that comes out of New Orleans with the Neville Brothers, the Marsalis family and Louis Armstrong, who did such a special music out of New Orleans.

It all emanated from the Delta, and it came from--whether it be gospel, as Ms. Watson commented, or blues, it evolved and brought about a new art form.

In Memphis, we had Stax Records, where Otis Redding from Georgia came to record his music. Isaac Hayes, my good friend and who was a chief in Ghana and passed just about a year ago this month, produced Shaft, and he took a special experience to Los Angeles with the Watts Music Festival. And Isaac Hayes was performance art and just beyond music. He was a unique individual who took a certain style and a certain music. Isaac never knew how to read music but he knew how to write it and produce it, and he was a genuine American, unique musician and hero.

Isaac Hayes came out of Memphis, the Bar-Kays and so many people out of Stax Records. There was also Hi Records in Memphis where Willie Mitchell produced Al Green. And Memphis is very proud of its musical heritage, which is preserved in the Stax Soulful Music where the Stax Records were on McLemore, and at the same time there was Motown in Detroit with Stevie Wonder and Martha Reeves and the Vandellas and the Supremes and on and on and on.

Memphis and Detroit both are very proud of our musical traditions and histories, and we support those; Memphis in particular, where Elvis Presley was a transformative individual that took an African American musical heritage and combined it with some Tennessee country or rockabilly and produced rock and roll. And he, like Michael Jackson, were crossover figures that had a major influence on American society because they told youth that race wasn't an issue. The music got beyond race.

America has had a problem over its history with race, and one thing Elvis Presley did is it told a lot of young white people that it was cool to shake your leg and to like music and to show some emotion and expression. And Michael Jackson showed a lot of people that what he produced was fine in different cultures, and it wasn't necessarily one race that liked that particular music or another and was a transformative effect.

The reason we celebrate Black Music Month is because of the tremendous contributions that this country has received from musicians that are African American. And whether it's jazz, whether it's blues, whether it's gospel with Mahalia Jackson and Aretha Franklin and other people from the pulpit, or whether it's other forms where Nat King Cole or Sammy Davis or Lena Horne made such an impression or Marian Anderson, it's a particularly special place and it's allowed, I think, a transcendent voice for a civil rights movement.

Harry Belafonte did calypso, a different type of music, but Harry Belafonte was strong in the civil rights movement and helping move this country forward. And I think there was a lot of African American music that helped make the civil rights movement happen and make people understand, by identifying with performers in music in ways they otherwise could not identify with African Americans because of our segregated society, about how wrong it was that segregation existed and allow an opportunity for people to see that from a more personal, visceral level, and to make this country change and become the more perfect union that it needs to become and to live up to the ideals that our Founding Fathers had about a society where all men were created equal, which really wasn't true for so many years.

I think music has had a great influence, and black music has had an influence on our country that is special, and the reason we honor Black Music Month is we remember those ideals and remember these people that were creative in our society over the years. Some young people don't know about jazz. They don't know about a Lionel Hampton and what he could do with a xylophone or some of the other great performers, and we need to know that history and revere it.

I had a dear friend named Warren Zevon who died in 2003. He was a folk singer, a rock and roller, but he knew he was going to die. And when he was close to death, he talked with a man named Jorge Calderon who cowrote with him, and they were talking about dying. And he said to him, he said, Warren, it's not bad. He said, You will get to see Miles. And here was rock and roll folk singers, and what were they talking about was Miles Davis because he transcended music and race. Miles Davis, he was something special, and there were so many performers like that.

And that's the reason why it's important that we recognize that heritage and that history, what it's meant to America, not just in entertainment but in social change, and that's why I'm proud to join the 70 cosponsors and to speak in behalf of this resolution and ask that we pass H. Res. 476, that we encourage schools and teachers to teach the arts, to teach music and to teach this heritage so that people understand how music can really move a country and a society forward.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend my colleague from Arizona for taking the time to scrutinize many of these projects.

I am pleased with the changes we have made in this body with respect to the transparency and accountability of the earmark reform process. It's something that my colleague has fought for for many years, but those changes did not actually take place until the new Congress was sworn in in January 2006. I am pleased we have gotten to this point, and I think the gentleman performs a very useful function here.

Montgomery County, Maryland, has become one of the Nation's centers in the biotech area. It is one of the top 10 biotech centers in the country. One of the reasons they were able to do that is they pursued a successful strategy of creating incubators.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a whole list of success stories for the Montgomery County Incubator.

Montgomery County Incubator Network Success Stories--June 2009

1. Avalon Pharmaceuticals.

Ken Carter, Ph.D., President, 20358 Seneca Meadows Parkway,

Germantown, MD 20876, 301-556-9900.

Admitted: January 2000.

Graduated: October 2000.

Current Employees: 50+.

At admission: 3.

Avalon Pharmaceuticals, Inc is a bio company that utilizes

an innovative forward chemical genetics approach to create

safer and more effective small molecules medicines-focused in

the area of cancer. The company has received more than 60

million in venture capital funding. In December 2004 the

company was selected as a Top 100 Innovator by Red Herring.

Red Herring covers technology innovation, venture financing,

and the deals that make a difference. Its award-winning

journalists go deeper, providing a comprehensive, critical

analysis of what's new and why it matters. Red Herring's

editorial staff evaluated over 1,200 submissions from 900

public and private companies, and selected the Top Innovator

companies. The company executed an IPO in 2005 and was sold

in 2009 to Clinical Data.

2. Nextone Communications.

Ravi Narayan, COO and Co-founder, 101 Orchard Ridge Dr.,

Suite 300, Gaithersburg, MD 20878, Tel. 240-912-1300.

Admitted: April 1999.

Graduated: January 2003.

Current Employees: 100+.

At admission: 4.

Nextone develops carrier-grade products that provide

scalable session management of voice over IP (VoIP) and other

real-time services. Nextone's portfolio of core and edge

session management technologies enables service providers and

carriers to interconnect their voice networks in the most

simple and cost effective way. Nextone has offices in Asia

and Europe.

3. Systems Integration & Development, INC (SID).

Ajay Agrawal, President & Founder, 15200 Shady Grove Road,

Suite 300, Rockville, MD 20850, Tel. 301-840-2120.

Admitted: January 1999.

Graduated: July 2002.

Current Employees: 110.

At admission: 4.

SID specializes in designing, developing, and implementing

superior quality web based software solutions for commercial

enterprises and government agencies. SID has developed

several web based COTS tools as solutions for workflow

management, document management and tracking systems. 2004

has been a stellar year for SID. The company has been named

members of several key ``who's who'' lists in the IT world,

including Maryland Technology Fast 50 (ranked 21st),

Washington Technology Fast 50 (ranked 13th), and the

Technology Fast 500 for North America (ranked 483rd.)

4. GeneDX, Inc.

Sherri Bale, Founder, President & Clinical Director, 207

Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, Tel: 301-519-2100,

x102.

Admitted: July 1999.

Graduated: September 2002.

Current Employees: 25.

At admission: 2.

GeneDx specializes in genetic testing for rare hereditary

disorders. Its mission is to make clinical testing available

to people with rare genetic conditions and their families.

5. Opgen, Inc.

Noel Doheny, CEO, 708 Quince Orchard Boulevard,

Gaithersburg, MD 20878, Tel: 301-919-6635.

Admitted: March 2008.

Graduated: July 2008.

Current Employees: 56.

At Admission: 2.

Opgen holds the record for the fastest graduation in the

Incubator Network. The company owns a proprietary molecular

detection system. The purpose of its technology is to detect

and identify pathogens. Opgen's technology was utilized by

the U.S. FDA to detect and trace the source of e-coli and

salmonella that broke out in the produce markets. The company

has received $50MM in venture funding and has contracts with

the FDA and DARPA.

7. Aeras Global TB Foundation.

Jerald Sadoff, MD, President & CEO, 1405 Research

Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850, Tel: 301-547-2900.

Admitted: February 2004.

Graduated: September 2006.

Current Employees: 110.

At Admittance: 5.

Aeras is the recipient of over $200MM in grants, namely

from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The organization is

focused on developing a new and improved vaccine for

tuberculosis, as well as diagnostics and therapeutics.

8. Advanced Vision Therapies, Inc.--``Finding Solutions to

Prevent Blindness''.

Michael Kaleko MD, PhD, President, 9 West Watkins Mill

Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

Admitted: June 2003.

Graduated: January 2007.

Current Employees: 18.

At Admittance: 4.

Advanced Vision Therapies, Inc. (AVT) is focused on the

treatment of sight-threatening eye diseases, such as age-

related macular degeneration and finding a cure that works.

AVT recognized that an improved delivery system is required

to enable the broad application of ocular therapeutics. The

company has identified two novel therapeutics and developed a

proprietary delivery system, which, with a single

administration, will provide sustained, possibly life-long

therapy. AVT was aquired by the Wellstadt group who was

subsequently aquired by Roche.

9. 20/20 GeneSystems, Inc.

Jonathan Cohen, Esq., CEO, 9430 Key West Avenue, Rockville,

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are now adjusting to a new imperative, which is to make sure that we, as a Nation and as communities, move in the direction of clean energy technology and energy efficiency. These funds would be used by Montgomery County on a competitive basis to provide seed funding for startup small businesses, companies that have to meet very rigorous criteria, just as the kind of criteria they used and was applied in the biotech sector. So I think this is an incredible example of strong public-private partnerships. Again, these will be distributed on a very competitive basis. There is going to be a long line of people waiting for these requests, and they are going to have to meet the competition requirements. I'm pleased to join in this request with my colleague Donna Edwards. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we're in Ways and Means marking up the health bill, so I am going to have to turn it over to my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I don't oppose the content of this amendment, I do oppose the process in which it was offered.

Mr. Chairman, this is a controversial bill to many Americans. Increasing spending by $1.6 billion, or 7 percent, should be allowed to be debated under this bill. In addition, the changes in long-standing policy on abortion and on medical marijuana should also have an opportunity to be debated. I think that the responsible regular functioning of this institution is so important, especially on spending measures that demand the full attention of Congress, because they've got the full attention of the American people.

As my colleagues know, a manager's amendment traditionally is meant not to be controversial. It's meant to be offered and supported by both sides of the aisle to improve the bill in ways on which we can all agree. The manager's amendment is meant to have a quick debate, typically followed by debate on more difficult issues. Taking three proposed amendments by our Democratic colleagues and rolling them into a manager's amendment while prohibiting debate on the majority of amendments submitted by the Republicans is not in the tradition of this House or the tradition of what a manager's amendment should be.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike $50 million from the $100 million under the Election Assistance Commission for Help America Vote grants for States.

The President's budget requested a total of $52 million for election reform programs, $50 million for grants to States, and $2 million for research and other initiatives. My amendment would simply return the State grant funding level in this account to the same amount that the President's budget requested.

Sixty-two percent of the States have not even applied for their fiscal year 2008--2008--Help America Vote funds. Of the $115 million provided for State grants in fiscal year 2008, only about 20 percent of the funds have been obligated to the States; $25 million has been given to 18 States. Of the $100 million provided for State grants in fiscal year 2009, not even 4 percent has left the Treasury. Only two States have received fiscal year 2009 funds. So we have almost $186 million still sitting in the Treasury for these grants.

Now, I think you all know me and you know me well enough to know that if there is a need, I'm fully supportive of matching the funding level to that need. However, I see little need to provide another $100 million in unused funds to then get to a total of $286 million in untapped funds.

I respect my chairman, and I respect the need for election reform and certainty in the election process. There is no question that we are obligated to provide for free and fair elections. It is a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard our elections. However, this is one account that has a demonstrated lack of funding needs for the coming fiscal year. Even the President recognized the opportunity to save the taxpayer $50 million.

I urge all to do the same and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that I have great respect for my chairman, and I certainly have great respect for the gentleman from New Jersey who has worked tirelessly on HAVA and worked to ensure that we have fair elections across this country.

And I do not believe that we should, to take a quote, shortchange any piece of the electoral process. But I bring to my colleagues' attention, once again, the fact that we have $186 million that is sitting in the Treasury the States have not tapped into. Sixty-two percent of the funds from 2008 haven't been used. We've only used 4 percent for 2009. And I think that nobody better than our President understands the need for us to find savings. And when we're sitting on $186 million, and with the additional $52 million that we will have in this account, we're still well over $200 million. And I dare say that at the rate that the States are using this money, we will never spend it.

And certainly, in difficult economic times, I truly believe that deferring to the President's budget request makes good economic sense.

I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Funding recommendations included in this bill were made in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of the House. On a bipartisan basis, we have scrutinized thousands of Member requests and recommended funding for those projects we believe are most meritorious. In addition, the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Funding recommendations included in this bill were made in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of the House. In addition, the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project, and it provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee.

Unfortunately, Mr. Simpson, the sponsor of the amendment, was unable to come to the floor due to other important business.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Funding recommendations included in this bill were made in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures of the House, and the Small Business Administration was given an opportunity to vet this project, and provided the committee with no negative feedback regarding the project or the grantee. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield to Mr. Brown of South Carolina.

I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Culberson from Texas.